Rule2025-18636
Finding of Failure To Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards; California; San Joaquin Valley
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 25, 2025
Effective
October 27, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the San Joaquin Valley, California area failed to attain the 1997 8- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by its June 15, 2024 "Extreme" area attainment date. This determination is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2021 through 2023. As a result of this determination, the State of California is required to implement nonattainment contingency measures and the stationary source fee program required under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 185.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 184 (Thursday, September 25, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 184 (Thursday, September 25, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46065-46067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-18636]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0587; FRL-12483-02-R9]
Finding of Failure To Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards;
California; San Joaquin Valley
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
the San Joaquin Valley, California area failed to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by its June
15, 2024 ``Extreme'' area attainment date. This determination is based
on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data
from 2021 through 2023. As a result of this determination, the State of
California is required to implement nonattainment contingency measures
and the stationary source fee program required under Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 185.
DATES: This determination is effective on October 27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0587. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105: phone: (415) 972-3407; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016d607673646f62642f6d60747360416471602f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2aea3b5b0a7aca1a7ecaea3b7b0a382a7b2a3eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On July 10, 2025, the EPA proposed to determine that the San
Joaquin Valley area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date.\1\ Our proposed determination was based on
three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2021 to 2023 monitoring period.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 30607.
\2\ An area is considered to have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10, based on three consecutive years of
complete, quality-assured, and certified monitoring data. A
violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data
show that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is
greater than 0.08 ppm. Due to rounding and truncation conventions,
the computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the
smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable
level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period.\3\ The EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2008 and
tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS further in 2015, but this
determination applies only to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ The EPA
revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective April 6, 2015; \5\
however, to comply with anti-backsliding requirements of the Act, areas
designated nonattainment at the time that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
was revoked remain subject to certain requirements based on their
classification at the time of revocation, including requirements
related to nonattainment contingency measures under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and, for ``Severe'' and ``Extreme'' areas,
major source fee programs under CAA section 185.\6\ The EPA's
determination that an area failed to attain by its attainment date,
which is made under CAA section 301 and consistent with section
181(b)(2), triggers these anti-backsliding requirements. See South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d
[[Page 46066]]
1138, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South Coast II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). We refer to the ozone NAAQS
established by the EPA in 1997 as the ``1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS'' or
``1997 8-hour ozone standard.''
\4\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) (referred to as the ``2008
ozone NAAQS''). The EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at
80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015) (referred to as the ``2015 ozone
NAAQS'').
\5\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\6\ 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The area designated as the San Joaquin Valley area consists of San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings
counties, and the western portion of Kern County. The area stretches
over 250 miles from north to south, averages a width of 80 miles, and
encompasses over 23,000 square miles. It is partially enclosed by the
Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south,
and the Sierra Nevada range to the east.\7\ The population of the San
Joaquin Valley area is over 4.3 million people.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, see 40 CFR
81.305.
\8\ SJVUAPCD, 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
(December 15, 2022), p. 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Joaquin Valley area, excluding areas of Indian country,\9\
lies within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District''). Under California
law, SJVUAPCD is responsible for adopting and implementing stationary
source rules in the San Joaquin Valley, such as the fee program rules
required under CAA section 185, while the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer products and mobile source
rules subject to the requirements of CAA section 209. CARB submits
District and State rules to the EPA for approval into the state
implementation plan (SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed determination provides additional background
information on the effects of exposure to elevated levels of ground
level ozone, the designation and classification of the San Joaquin
Valley under the CAA for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the statutory and
regulatory provisions that apply to determinations of attainment. It
also describes our review of the air quality monitoring data on which
we based our proposed determination that the area failed to attain the
1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
Our July 10, 2025 proposed determination provided a 30-day public
comment period that closed on August 11, 2025. During this period, we
received three comment letters. The comment letters are included in the
docket for this action. Our summary of the comments and our responses
are as follows:
Comment 1: An anonymous commenter asserts that the EPA's proposed
determination underscores the chronic difficulty in controlling ozone
precursors in a region with high population vulnerability, intense
industrial and agricultural activity, and significant climate exposure.
The commenter observes that warming temperatures driven by elevated
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) accelerate photochemical reactions,
lengthen the ozone season, and reduce the effectiveness of existing
controls. The commenter urges the EPA to recognize the amplifying role
of CO<INF>2</INF>-driven climate effects on ozone nonattainment,
particularly in climate-sensitive regions like California's Central
Valley; to encourage California and local air districts to integrate
greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies into ozone planning; and to
promote transparency in SIP updates and future planning by requiring or
recommending that CO<INF>2</INF> co-emissions from major sources be
disclosed and evaluated.
Response 1: The EPA acknowledges the points made by the commenter,
but notes that none of the statements or arguments are adverse to the
action being undertaken here, and therefore they do not argue for a
changed outcome within the present action. The commenter's comments do
not address the EPA's rationale for the proposed determination of
failure to attain and are outside the scope of this action.
Comment 2: The District describes the many challenges facing the
San Joaquin Valley in meeting the NAAQS, but it also notes the progress
in reducing ambient concentrations over the past 20 years, both in
terms of lower design values and reduced areas subject to violations of
the standard, through the adoption and implementation of various state
and local control measures and strategies. The District also
acknowledges that additional progress is needed and cites the critical
need for continued coordination with CARB and the EPA to reduce sources
of emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, especially mobile sources that
make up a significant portion of the Valley's emissions.
Response 2: The EPA acknowledges the points made by the District,
but we also note that none of the statements or arguments are adverse
to the action being undertaken here, and they therefore do not argue
for a changed outcome within the present action. The District's
comments do not address the EPA's rationale for the proposed
determination of failure to attain and are outside the scope of this
action.
Comment 3: The Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for
Healthy Air, and Sierra Club (``Air Advocates'') support the proposed
determination of failure to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date in San Joaquin Valley. The Air Advocates
note that, while the proposed determination is based on the design
value for the 2021-2023 period, the design value for the 2022-2024
period for the San Joaquin Valley area continues to fail to attain the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
Response 3: While, as Air Advocates notes, the determination of
failure to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley is
based on the three-year (calendar) period (in this case, 2021-2023)
prior to the June 15, 2024 attainment date, the EPA acknowledges that
the San Joaquin Valley area continues to fail to attain based on a
design value of 0.088 ppm for the 2022-2024 period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA, 2024 Design Values Reports, ``Ozone Design Values,
2024,'' excel spreadsheet, updated May 28, 2025. For comparison, the
highest design value consistent with a finding of attainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS is 0.084 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.10; and 40 CFR part 50,
appendix I, section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA Action
Pursuant to CAA section 301 and consistent with CAA section
181(b)(2), and after considering comments received, the EPA is
finalizing its determination that the San Joaquin Valley failed to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2024 attainment
date, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data from 2021 through 2023. The EPA is determining that
this area failed to attain by the applicable attainment date solely for
purposes of triggering applicable anti-backsliding requirements.\11\
For Extreme areas, applicable requirements triggered upon a finding
that an area failed to attain by the attainment date are nonattainment
contingency measures and CAA section 185 fee programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In this instance, the final determination of failure to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley by
the applicable attainment date triggers CARB's Smog Check
Contingency Measure in the Valley and the District's Rule 3171
(``Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee--1997 8-Hour
Standard''). The EPA approved CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure
at 89 FR 56222 (July 9, 2024). CARB submitted District Rule 3171 to
the EPA as a SIP revision on January 10, 2024, but the EPA has not
yet taken action on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46067]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because actions that make
determinations consistent with CAA section 181(b)(2) are exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,
or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the obligations discussed herein do not
apply to Indian Tribes and thus, this action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nonetheless,
the EPA is notifying the Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley ozone
area of the final determination.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is not a rule and is therefore not subject to the CRA.
The action is an informal adjudication dealing with the application of
specific facts to preestablished discernible criteria.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 24, 2025. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this action does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 11, 2025.
Michael Martucci,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter 1, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.282 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
* * * * *
(p) Determination of Failure to Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.
The EPA has determined that, as of October 27, 2025, the San Joaquin
Valley Area Extreme 8-hour ozone nonattainment area did not attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15,
2024. This determination bears on the area's obligations with respect
to the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard anti-backsliding requirements
whose implementation is triggered by a determination of failure to
attain by the applicable attainment date: section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures for failure to attain and sections 182(d)(3) and 185 major
stationary source fee programs.
[FR Doc. 2025-18636 Filed 9-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 25, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.